The 4 Elements

Some old Greek fuckers from way back, probably stole the idea of the 4 elements from some much more intelligent gentlemen that proceeded them. Nevertheless till this very day the four elements are just as relevant now as they were back then.

Quantum physicist are currently battling it out in the ultimate nerd off to create a unifying theory that inter-relates the:

Strong nuclear force
Weak nuclear force
Electromagnetism
Gravity

There are some even smarter people who correspond these forces as further evidence and allegory to the hidden principals, which are the four elements; that, while creating every material object in our universe, is so often over-looked.

The human frame itself consists of Spirit, Mind, Soul, Body. Intuition, intellect, emotions and sensation. The quadrangular effect of this law descends life itself, down to earth, in an action of manifestation, to appear in our world of experience in a myriad of forms and bodies.

An understanding of the four elements allows us hermetic scientists, the ability to scrutinise matter, follow her paths and find the root of her existence. Not her existence only, but her purpose also.

When we look closer at the elements, we see that each has a feces, the refuse and scum of a third dimensional reality, that which is dead within the living matter. But once these feces are removed, we can see clearly, and matter can express her elements outwardly, not being held back and dampened by the weight of her dirt.

And each of these elements, like the tutors of nature herself, hold a particular character, and particular relationship, one with another. So what are these relationships? What is the true character of each teacher? How may we use these attributes in the laboritory and how may we use them within ourselves?

I will allow time for ponderin before I continue this discourse (and it's late and the phone is dying) Night night!

Some old Greek fuckers from way back, probably stole the idea of the 4 elements from some much more intelligent gentlemen that proceeded them. Nevertheless till this very day the four elements are just as relevant now as they were back then.

Not really... that wild speculations is not consistent with history.
Greek Sophistry, which later was divided into Sophistry and Philosophy (by the pythagorean school) began with the obsession of finding two things:

The idea that the concept of the 4 elements was "stolen" is unsupported by history... the first sophists were trying to find the Arche. It was water for Thales of Miletus, it was air for Anaximenes of Miletus... others went into different theories and claimed that it had to be something uncreated and undefined (the famous "Apeiron" of Anaximander)... or the idea that everything already existed in some sort of homogeneous matter that was divided and separated by an intellect (Nous), such was the case of Anaxagoras (whose theories are quite similar to the Genesis of the Bible in some way). The one who defined the 4 elements was Empedocles, but based on these ideas.

The idea of a theft is not too consistent with history, when you have a progression and different sophists giving their own opinion... and Empedocles simply united all the theories that found the Arche in an element and defined the 4 elements (it is possible to discuss if Anaximander has not done it before he did... which is somehow an endless discussion).

Originally Posted by elixirmixer

When we look closer at the elements, we see that each has a feces, the refuse and scum of a third dimensional reality, that which is dead within the living matter. But once these feces are removed, we can see clearly, and matter can express her elements outwardly, not being held back and dampened by the weight of her dirt.

And each of these elements, like the tutors of nature herself, hold a particular character, and particular relationship, one with another. So what are these relationships? What is the true character of each teacher? How may we use these attributes in the laboritory and how may we use them within ourselves?

Those questions are not necessarily different than the ones that the first sophists asked themselves and arrived to their own ideas... some of them are in vogue, such as the idea of multiple universes (an idea held by Anaximander).

What I don't like about the "wild speculations" is that they end up with absolutely weird claims such as "there extraterrestrials contacted Empedocles and taught him that the elements are 4"... when it is easy to read the sources and notice that he was simply making an ancient "Theory of Everything" by uniting ideas that were expressed by others sophists such as Thales, Anaximenes, etc...

Other theories co-existed, such as the Atomism of Democritus or Epicurus, but for some reason that "elemental theory" won the battle for several centuries (though the atomic theory kept on returning through the ages under different veils).

Other theories co-existed, such as the Atomism of Democritus or Epicurus, but for some reason that "elemental theory" won the battle for several centuries (though the atomic theory kept on returning through the ages under different veils).

Curiously, among the alchemists and chymists corpuscular theories, the "four elements", and/or the two (or three) "principles" often coexisted without much problem. The author of the text entitled "How many are the fires of the operation according to Art", for example, has no problem accepting that the matter of metals is "sulfur" and "mercury" (the most accepted theory of metallogenesis among the alchemists), yet at the same time he also has no problem explaining transmutation by means of mechanical movements of the corpuscles or "parts" that make up the metals (so, for example, to explain how silver can turn into gold, which is much denser than silver, he says that the Stone forces the "parts" of silver to contract, coming closer to each other and thus acquiring the density of gold.)

However, there is a difference between embracing corpuscular theories in general and more specifically embracing the corpuscular theories of Democritus, Lucretius, etc. The fact that these specific corpuscular theories were not very successful does not mean that other forms of corpuscular theory did not find more reception. Even Aristotle himself sometimes employed corpuscular theories. Just look at his Meteorology. The fact that Aristotle rejected Democritus' theory specifically does not mean that he rejected all corpuscular ideas.

Curiously, among the alchemists and chymists corpuscular theories, the "four elements", and/or the two (or three) "principles" often coexisted without much problem. The author of the text entitled "How many are the fires of the operation according to Art", for example, has no problem accepting that the matter of metals is "sulfur" and "mercury" (the most accepted theory of metallogenesis among the alchemists), yet at the same time he also has no problem explaining transmutation by means of mechanical movements of the corpuscles or "parts" that make up the metals (so, for example, to explain how silver can turn into gold, which is much denser than silver, he says that the Stone forces the "parts" of silver to contract, coming closer to each other and thus acquiring the density of gold.)

You are right. A text I like a lot (I have to confess that I even got a tattoo based on it!) is Kircher's "Ars Magna Sciendi sive Combinatoria", which was his own interpretation of the Ars Magna of Llull (his art of combinations... by Llull, not pseudo-Llull).... and if you observe the fourth column, then you have the 3 theories "united" (even if this text is not exactly alchemical, but mostly logical & linguistic... but it offers a "world-view" that unites the 3 theories):

If you follow the fourth column, the #1 (Deus, God) is the Tria Principa... the #4 (Elements) are the 4 elements... the #9 (Matter) is atomic/corpuscular. This is just ONE example in which the "3 theories" are united.

Originally Posted by JDP

However, there is a difference between embracing corpuscular theories in general and more specifically embracing the corpuscular theories of Democritus, Lucretius, etc. The fact that these specific corpuscular theories were not very successful does not mean that other forms of corpuscular theory did not find more reception. Even Aristotle himself sometimes employed corpuscular theories. Just look at his Meteorology. The fact that Aristotle rejected Democritus' theory specifically does not mean that he rejected all corpuscular ideas.

I am far from being a fan of Aristotle (that tricky monster), but I can agree with the idea that occidental alchemy was born somehow as the offspring of a neo-platonic view on aristotelian + stoic ideas.... which is quite interesting, because Alchemy somehow managed to merge rival theories.

I already know a bit about your tastes, so I assume that "Hermetic Recreations" is too modern for you, but something interesting about this text is how the author is obsessed with Aristotle, whilst if I imagine Aristotle reading "Hermetic Recreations", he would be cursing (and I don't mean the "alchemical operation" described there, but the "world-view" or "genesic theory").

... but you are right, the tradition of alchemy created an amalgam of theories which would have been quite unthinkable for a "classical Greek philosopher" (I don't see something incredibly "new" in the theory when it comes to the world view, but the amalgam itself is... well, it's an amalgam of "rival theories").

Comparing Hollandus, with Bardon, the student can learn a great deal. Hollandus expresses that each of the 4 elements has a destructable aspect, and indistructable aspect and a feces. Bardon shares with us that each of the four elements have an active, constructive aspect, a preserving aspect, and a decomposing aspect.

I wonder if these properties correlate with one another. Does the active, contructive properties of an element correspond with its indestructable qualities? Does feces preserve? or decompose?

Anyway, everyone should drop everything they are doing and buy this book, and master it. Well that's unless your already a qualified shaman, evocationalist or kabbalahist

(Free copies are available online) - a must read for anyone looking to escape the hologram, and who finds themselves struggling to do so.

Schmuldvich -Can you share some examples of the epic medicines you are referring to?

In your own words, how would you describe "proper elemental theory"?

Example: Hollandus' plant stone, will, according to Hollandus, smash cancer in the crouch... WITH AN AXE!

When the Quintessence is present, no dark spirit can remain. Therefore, perfect health will, in the matter of three days apparently, return.

Why? How? well... Elemental Theory!

Fire, Air, Water, Earth, Heart, GO PLANET!

TRUE elemental "theory" (the name needs some work, when I finish my Hollandus Stone along with my essay ill coin a better phrase for it.)

When one practises spagyrics, they concern themselves with three things. Merc. Sulphur. Salt. However, these are really more affectionate nicknames stolen from our art to assist in this spagyric pop-culture, helping to cover up all the real stuff.

A true Hermetic way..... woah woah woah.. no.. i'm not doing this again. I share and share and share and so far, ive only had one person actively and openly share with me.

JDP said something about a "private" thread. Is that possible on this forum?? I'm really not sure that the world deserves my Hollandus stone, especially since everyone I've seen attempt it fucks it up COMPLETELY, STRAIGHT AWAY! So its obviously little known and yeah, im running out of pearls and there is no end to the worlds swinyness.

Comparing Hollandus, with Bardon, the student can learn a great deal. Hollandus expresses that each of the 4 elements has a destructable aspect, and indistructable aspect and a feces. Bardon shares with us that each of the four elements have an active, constructive aspect, a preserving aspect, and a decomposing aspect.

From what I know, Bardon writes about elements from somewhat different point than Hollandus.

Hollandus basically wrote that there are Eternal Elements or Eternal Matter, and then there are Finite/Destructible Stinky Elements or Stinky Matter. Stinky Matter only exists because it contains Eternal Matter in itself.

Bardon mixes Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma in that context. His book is quite good, but he simplifies a lot of things, where they shouldn't be kept simple.

From what I know, Bardon writes about elements from somewhat different point than Hollandus.

Hollandus basically wrote that there are Eternal Elements or Eternal Matter, and then there are Finite/Destructible Stinky Elements or Stinky Matter. Stinky Matter only exists because it contains Eternal Matter in itself.

Bardon mixes Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma in that context. His book is quite good, but he simplifies a lot of things, where they shouldn't be kept simple.

I think we can give Bardon some latitude and say he is concise not oversimplifying in his first work which is designed for solo Hermetic training ( not Alchemy). Regrettably the Czech secret police destroyed his manuscripts and he died in prison so his planned work on Alchemy was lost.

Comparing Hollandus, with Bardon, the student can learn a great deal. Hollandus expresses that each of the 4 elements has a destructable aspect, and indistructable aspect and a feces. Bardon shares with us that each of the four elements have an active, constructive aspect, a preserving aspect, and a decomposing aspect.

I wonder if these properties correlate with one another. Does the active, contructive properties of an element correspond with its indestructable qualities? Does feces preserve? or decompose?

Anyway, everyone should drop everything they are doing and buy this book, and master it. Well that's unless your already a qualified shaman, evocationalist or kabbalahist

(Free copies are available online) - a must read for anyone looking to escape the hologram, and who finds themselves struggling to do so.

Loading flasks with universal light is a useful thing to do I feel, further on in Bardon's first work we have use of electromagnetic fluid which can be adapted in a similar way which is even better.